Davis v. Saul

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JIMMY LEE DAVIS, Case No. 20-cv-05805-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE IFP APPLICATION AND 9 v. DISMISSING COMPLAINT

10 ANDREW M. SAUL, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Pro se plaintiff Jimmy Lee Davis has filed a complaint against Social Security 14 Administration (SSA) Commissioner Andrew Saul, and an application to proceed in forma 15 pauperis (IFP). Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. The IFP application is granted, and the case is dismissed. 16 IFP requests are evaluated under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the first question is whether the 17 plaintiff’s financial status excuses payment of the court’s filing fees. The answer here is yes. 18 Davis states that he is unemployed and has a monthly income of only $1,000 in government 19 benefits. Dkt. No. 2. Davis meets the financial qualifications for IFP status. 20 The next question is whether the amended complaint is sufficient to stand, and the answer 21 is no. The Court may “at any time” dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state a claim on which 22 relief may be granted, or that is “frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lopez v. Smith, 23 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (this statute “applies to all in forma pauperis 24 complaints”). The standard for dismissal for failure to state a claim is the same as under Federal 25 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). As a 26 pro se plaintiff, Davis gets a liberal construction of his complaint and the benefit of any doubts, 27 but he still must satisfy the requirements of Rule 8 and state facts sufficient to allege a plausible 1 claim. Nguyen Gardner v. Chevron Capital Corp., No. 15-cv-01514-JD, 2015 WL 12976114, at 2 |} *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2015). 3 The complaint does not plausibly allege a claim. It is a largely incomprehensible series of 4 statements about a purported conspiracy by the mayor of San Francisco, her son, the Federal 5 || Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and a “hit team” to deprive him of “SSA Retroactive pay.” Dkt. 6 || No. 1 at ECF p. 3. Davis filed an amended complaint, which says in passing that the same 7 purported events violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dkt. No. 5 at 5-6. The amended complaint also 8 added a number of offensive epithets that have no place in federal pleadings under any 9 || circumstances. 10 Consequently, the complaints are dismissed. The only remaining question is whether 11 Davis should be allowed to amend. Two factors weigh heavily against this. He has already tried 12 || twice in this case to state a plausible claim, without a modicum of success. It also appears that he 5 13 tried to pursue very similar allegations in Jimmy Lee Davis v. United States, Case No. 20-cv- 14 || 02010-WHO (Davis ID, a case that was filed in this district earlier this year and dismissed. See 3 15 Davis I, Dkt. Nos. 5, 14. The order dismissing the amended complaint characterized Davis’s 16 allegations of conspiracy as “far-fetched” and “conclusory.” Davis I, Dkt. No. 14 at 2. It also 3 17 noted that Davis has filed “‘at least 30 cases” in this district as of 2019, all of which “have either 18 || been dismissed for failure to prosecute or dismissed for failure to state a claim.” Id. Davis was 19 || not given further leave to amend, and a clerk’s judgment was entered. Davis I, Dkt. No. 15. 20 In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by further amendment. See 21 Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). The case is ordered 22 || closed. All other pending motions and requests are terminated as moot. Davis is advised that no 23 || further filings of any sort will be permitted without the Court’s prior approval. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: January 13, 2021 26 27 28 JAMES MPONATO United States District Judge